Main menu

Four principles for Theories of Change in global development

The stratospheric rise of the Theory of
Change approach continues. In a new paper published today, I argue that taking
a Theory of Change approach demands a radical shift towards more and better
learning in development thinking and practice.

Hang
on, do we know what a Theory of Change approach actually is?

At a workshop at ODI in April 2015, we
sought to work out how different people were using the term, for what purpose,
and with what effects. More detail on that can be found here and here.
What’s emerged is that the term ‘Theory of Change’ is being used in at least
three overlapping ways:

As a discourse,
asking ‘what’s your Theory of Change?’ has become an increasingly fashionable
way interrogate someone’s assumptions about change (and flummox newcomers to
the terminology).

As a tool,
it’s rapidly rivalling (and being used in conjunction with) the log frame. Here
it’s often used as a way of making explicit the assumptions connecting (watch
out, here comes aid jargon) activities, outputs and outcomes in reporting for
donors.

Taking a Theory of Change approach will likely include use of a tool in some form, but is broader,
reflecting a desire to embed a critical and adaptive approach in
organisational practice. This is perhaps the most exciting, as it builds in
what we know about how aid organisations can make effective
contributions to social change in complex environments.

So
where do we go from here?

The following principles (not rules) seek
to ground Theory of Change approaches in this emerging knowledge – and are
rooted in a concern with persistently damaging problems within the industry.

However, the aim is to not to be
prescriptive: debate them, critique them, and develop your own!

A Theory
of Change approach can challenge this, but in order to do so, it cannot be just
a document which is completed at the start of a project
and then sits gathering dust on a shelf. Regular engagement with underlying
assumptions is essential. I know this sounds ambiguous.

I’m not sure a fully-fledged toolkit is the
answer here, since these tend to be a fast way to slow down creativity. However
as demonstrated by The Asia Foundation, there are some light-touch methods such as project timelines or programme
diaries which can spark critical thinking and feed into broader strategy
testing.

2. Prioritise
learning

For a
reflective and adaptive approach to become mainstream in Theory of Change
approaches – and indeed in development more broadly – understandings of what
accountability and learning mean need to shift substantially.

In many other industries, from business to football, managers are praised for adapting to changing
circumstances; in development this is currently not the case. Shouldn’t we move
emphasis from monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to learning and adaptation (L&A)?

Having accountability for learningcould be a promising route: there is no reason why, for
example, programmes could not be held accountable for how much has been learnt
over time, how they have adapted to new information and why this adaption has
been important for improved development outcomes. This cannot be the case if
accountability continues to be conflated with accountancy.

3. Be
locally led

One of the dangers with a Theory of Change
approach is that it remains a top-down process: imposed by a narrow group
within organisations or programmes, or excluding the input and views of ‘beneficiaries’.

As one participant highlighted in the April
2015 workshop,
by engaging local partners and beneficiaries in the process, Theories of Change
can be used as a stick with which to beat donors, rather than the other way
around.

Where to begin with this? For a start,
let’s drop alienating and confusing terminology and focus on genuine debate and
discussion with partners over strategies and goals. I don’t use the acronym ‘ToC/s’
and I’m not sure if it matters if you use the term ‘Theory of Change’ (phew,
right?!).

Peace Direct seem to work along these lines
by engaging local organisations to develop their own Theories of Change. This
shows how Theory of Change approaches are also about organisational ideology;
as a ‘bottom-up’ organisation, we might expect this from them, whereas for
others, this would need to be a significant step-change in the way they think
and work.

4. Think
compass not map

For some leading Theory of Change advocates,
the process involves developing a ‘roadmap to get you from here to there’. The
problem here is that this way of thinking can recreate the fallacies in current
approach to logframes, such as assumptions of linearity.

Far more useful is the ideathat it should be a ‘compass for helping us find our way through the fog of
complex systems, discovering a path as we go along’.

Acknowledging ‘complexity’does not mean ditching planning processes altogether, but recognising that
often plans reflect best guesses about the future (and about the past too) and
will likely shift over time. There is
much we do know about getting from ‘here to there’ but the journey will be more
often be suited to a sailboat
than a train.

A reality check

Can any of this realistically be operationalised
in light of the unrealistic, time-consuming and misleading ‘results
agenda’?

Despite all the problems, there is some
room for manoeuvre, based on some interesting reforms within donors (such as
DFID’s smart
rules) and a growing evidence base for the approaches outlined above. This
needs to be capitalised on – and the paper released today gives some
suggestions for getting us there.

Of course, there is a need for modesty when
considering what can be achieved. The reinvention of tools and approaches is in
part a reaction to the persistent tensions in the industry; potentially helpful
but not tackling the root of the problem.

Perhaps, the greatest contribution of
Theories of Change may well be to help carve out a small but productive space for
genuine critical reflection within aid organisations. This may not sound too
radical to those outside the industry, but within it, this is an important and
pressing need.

​There remain very different
understandings of what a Theory of Change approach is, how it should in­form
development thinking and practice, and what it can achieve. This event aimed to
move the debate forward onto a set of common principles that can help guide the
approach, based upon the shared experiences of experts in the room.